So to avoid having shitty over-regulation where young children are harassed while running lemonade stands, you throw the baby out with the bathwater and would advocate a system that makes something like the MyBitcoin fiasco possible instead?

So I presume the obvious solution to MyBitcoin would be for its risk to be externalized upon taxpayers by undercapitalized federally mandated deposit insurance managed by people with no skin in the game, and blatant conflicts of interest?

This will allow for a web-based wallet service to never have the ability to spend or lose your coins, and the only added responsibility on your part is to keep one single, never changing, rarely used key safe (print it out, and store it safely offline!), and only dig it out when you need to enable a new device to access your wallet.

So much more is possible nowadays than was possible in the early 1900s. Be a little more creative...

No you are most certainly not protected. Because bitcoins are not regulated by any governments. You get as much protection as if somebody stole your ISK, or WOW gold. Less actually, since you have no central authority to go to.

Finnish police are investigating up to 400 cases of theft, with some members reporting the loss of up to €1000 (£840) worth of virtual furniture and other items, according to Detective Sergeant Marko Levonen.

A man who hacked into accounts to steal virtual characters and their possessions on one of the world’s biggest multi-player online games has been arrested.

In what experts believe is the first case of its kind in Britain, the man obtained log-in details for RuneScape, a web-based role playing game with more than ten million members, to steal their “virtual” characters.

Alright so we have 3 cases of actual crime fighting taking place regarding digital goods! Out of the millions of crimes everyday, totaly fluke accident figures. Most officers in the world wouldn't lift a finger to such crimes being reported.

Alright so we have 3 cases of actual crime fighting taking place regarding digital goods!

RIAAMPAA

I have no idea why people believe the law doesn't apply just because it's "digital". It does. There's no problem whatsoever reporting a theft of bitcoins. If the value of the object (digital as well as physical) is high enough it will be prioritized.

Of course, local laws may vary.

Quote

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A Dutch court has convicted two youths of theft for stealing virtual items in a computer game and sentenced them to community service.

I'm still not sure I understand what in the bitcoin world was "centralized." People were free to put their money in mybitcoin or not. Same goes for mtgox. They had no authority except over people who chose to be their customers. How is this a "free market" versus "central authority" issue?

1. Even if you pay on bitcoins you are required to pay taxes. Whether its enforceable and you do it is another issue.2. Theft is not permited, and that its independent of on what you pay taxes.

I feel you need to try harder and talk of things you know and understand.

Your government has to recognize that what was taken has any value. Theft is indeed wrong and illegal, but they put slightly lower priority on a few digital bits vs. $500,000 in cash. See: Allinvain.

Quote

Again, you are wrong. Companies push for whatever they want, but usually it means MORE regulations. Thats the reason why in each of the last decades the regulations in the USA have increased.

Yes, despite of what the official propaganda says (and you obviously believe), if you check the data you will see that regulations have increased in each of the last decades in the USA. The deregulation myth is just that, a myth. Please dont believe me, just go and check the data.

[citation needed]

Quote

Again, not true. As net result companies push for more regulations. The sad part is that they have educated a bunch of kids that grow into disfunctional adults into believing that regulations are for their protection.

Companies like BP and Exxon would love nothing more than to run in an unregulated environment. They would love to be able to drill wherever they found oil and not worry about pesky regulations. Power companies would love to be able to run their plants without worrying about emissions. Personally, I rather enjoy the regulations that require a minimal standard for my drinking water, and the air I breathe. It costs money and takes away from corporate profits to have to deal with regulations, and most companies would prefer to have zero regulation.

Quote

Actually, the FDIC is the perfect example of how regulations work. The FDIC does not have the money to pay for the banks failures and that is why the taxpayers have had to rescue them, specially through the Fed. That you think that you are not paying for the banks failures just shows that propaganda works.

What I see is that millions of people who needed their savings did not lose them, and thus helped us to avoid Great Depression 2.0. Of course to you that must seem a failure. It is precisely for reasons like this that governments should exist. Governments are not meant to turn profits, they are not corporations.

Quote

No, of course not. If there was no regulations, companies would have to compete and offer good services and good prices. Without regulations, how would the big companies abuse the costumers? We can not allow that.

Actually in a non-regulated world, you would have entities like Standard Oil running the show. In the absence of Anti-Trust regulations, monopolies will naturally occur in the market. Once that happens there really is no need to compete anymore. Actually once they get to certain size, they can simply undercut all of their competitors out of the market, resulting accelerating their predominance. It is a natural tendency of the market to gravitate in that direction. Regulations keep that from happening in the real world.

I am curious from your earlier post, you mentioned private justice. How would such a system be implemented for Bitcoin? I cannot see how any effective private justice system could work, given the nature of the Bitcoin network.

@defxor:Most law enforcement has to recognize that what you lost actually had value. Simply because you tell them you had $500k worth of digital goods stolen does not mean that it really is worth that. Now tell them $500k in cash or gold or something else tangible and they put a bit more of a priority on it. MPAA and RIAA have a lot of lawyers that they use to pressure law enforcement agencies with. A civilian has slightly less leverage. Also most agencies are not equipped with proper tools to do an investigation, and simply file your report away in unsolved crimes. The point is that one of the costs of not having any oversight or regulation is that it is useless to go to the police when something bad happens. It is kind of like trying to report a theft of illicit drugs, only without the risk of being arrested

I'm still not sure I understand what in the bitcoin world was "centralized." People were free to put their money in mybitcoin or not. Same goes for mtgox. They had no authority except over people who chose to be their customers. How is this a "free market" versus "central authority" issue?

Centralization can be the result of imposition or free choice. In any case, it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure.

Most law enforcement has to recognize that what you lost actually had value.

I'm quite sure the links I gave showed conclusively that it's enough to state the worth of your Habbo hotel furniture and Runescape characters for law enforcement to take seriously. That's no different from reporting a theft of an heirloom or antique furniture where you won't have a store receipt readily available to point to.

Bitcoins would, in that regard, be much much simpler to value. There's no "government recognized" part involved in this at all.

Centralization can be the result of imposition or free choice. In any case, it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure.

Ok, let's accept that, by your definition, if a whole bunch of people choose to put their money in mtgox or mybitcoin of their own free choice, that's a type of "centralization." (edit: I should add that I don't agree with this definition; I'm just accepting it so we don't get distracted by semantics). Are you suggesting that this type of centralization is bad and should be prevented somehow? This seems like an obvious potential consequence of a free market to me.

Centralization can be the result of imposition or free choice. In any case, it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure.

Ok, let's accept that, by your definition, if a whole bunch of people choose to put their money in mtgox or mybitcoin of their own free choice, that's a type of "centralization." Are you suggesting that this type of centralization is bad and should be prevented somehow?

I'm suggesting exactly what I said: "it brings with it a loss of resiliency in the event of failure".

1. Even if you pay on bitcoins you are required to pay taxes. Whether its enforceable and you do it is another issue.2. Theft is not permited, and that its independent of on what you pay taxes.

I feel you need to try harder and talk of things you know and understand.

Your government has to recognize that what was taken has any value. Theft is indeed wrong and illegal, but they put slightly lower priority on a few digital bits vs. $500,000 in cash. See: Allinvain.

Im glad that you admit in your way that what you said was basically wrong.

Btw, Allinvain case is not a confirmed theft. He came here, said he was robbed but there is no confirmation.

Quote

Quote

Again, you are wrong. Companies push for whatever they want, but usually it means MORE regulations. Thats the reason why in each of the last decades the regulations in the USA have increased.

Yes, despite of what the official propaganda says (and you obviously believe), if you check the data you will see that regulations have increased in each of the last decades in the USA. The deregulation myth is just that, a myth. Please dont believe me, just go and check the data.

[citation needed]

Its quite amazing that you go around saying things like deregulation! deregulation! without even looking at the data and what has really happened. You are proof that propaganda works. Here you have a nice graph:

Im guessing that even after seeing the data proving that the people claiming deregulation were lying to you you are going to continue believing them (propaganda works).

Quote

Quote

Again, not true. As net result companies push for more regulations. The sad part is that they have educated a bunch of kids that grow into disfunctional adults into believing that regulations are for their protection.

Companies like BP and Exxon would love nothing more than to run in an unregulated environment. They would love to be able to drill wherever they found oil and not worry about pesky regulations. Power companies would love to be able to run their plants without worrying about emissions. Personally, I rather enjoy the regulations that require a minimal standard for my drinking water, and the air I breathe. It costs money and takes away from corporate profits to have to deal with regulations, and most companies would prefer to have zero regulation.

In a free market, they would not be allowed to do those things and the quality of the water and the air would be much better. Its only because the government has taken over the management of the environment that they get away with it.

Btw, you are resorting to not answering arguments and just launching stupid accusations.

Quote

Quote

Actually, the FDIC is the perfect example of how regulations work. The FDIC does not have the money to pay for the banks failures and that is why the taxpayers have had to rescue them, specially through the Fed. That you think that you are not paying for the banks failures just shows that propaganda works.

What I see is that millions of people who needed their savings did not lose them, and thus helped us to avoid Great Depression 2.0. Of course to you that must seem a failure.

Right, because the taxpayer money the banks got was not taken away from people right? Also, the FDIC causes lots of other problems. In fact without the FDIC this crisis would not have been so big.

But the gem is this: "avoiding Great Depression 2.0"? We are in the Great Depression 2.0. This is again another proof that propaganda works.

Quote

It is precisely for reasons like this that governments should exist. Governments are not meant to turn profits, they are not corporations.

Quote

Quote

No, of course not. If there was no regulations, companies would have to compete and offer good services and good prices. Without regulations, how would the big companies abuse the costumers? We can not allow that.

Actually in a non-regulated world, you would have entities like Standard Oil running the show. In the absence of Anti-Trust regulations, monopolies will naturally occur in the market. Once that happens there really is no need to compete anymore. Actually once they get to certain size, they can simply undercut all of their competitors out of the market, resulting accelerating their predominance. It is a natural tendency of the market to gravitate in that direction. Regulations keep that from happening in the real world.

Ah, the myth of Standard Oil again. Honestly, you are going through all the points of the basic indoctrination for government regulations. If you really want to debate Standard Oil, lets go at it, but I feel you dont know much about it and will change subject like you have been doing for all the "debate".

You are the cause that BP got to pollute the golf and that corporations get to fuck over us. You should try to be less selfish and study a bit more reality for your fellow man. If you support regulations you are a corporatist.

Quote

I am curious from your earlier post, you mentioned private justice. How would such a system be implemented for Bitcoin? I cannot see how any effective private justice system could work, given the nature of the Bitcoin network.

There is lots of literature about it. I can point you some if you are interested.

Nobody's against regulation, per se, not even libertarians. Any system of enforcement of a particular system of private property rights is a form of compulsory market regulation, for example.

You are playing with semantics. Laws against theft and murder are not consider regulations. Nobody considers that the USA constitution is a set of regulations. Everybody understand by "regulations" the set of ever changing rules the governments use to manage the economy.

And btw, there are lots of libertarians that are against regulations and believe that the law should be an emergent system from the tradition of society. See, I played again with the semantics of regulations, lets not do that.

Nobody's against regulation, per se, not even libertarians. Any system of enforcement of a particular system of private property rights is a form of compulsory market regulation, for example.

You are playing with semantics. Laws against theft and murder are not consider regulations. Nobody considers that the USA constitution is a set of regulations. Everybody understand by "regulations" the set of ever changing rules the governments use to manage the economy.

And btw, there are lots of libertarians that are against regulations and believe that the law should be an emergent system from the tradition of society. See, I played again with the semantics of regulations, lets not do that.

From dictionary.com

reg·u·late [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPAverb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.1.to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.2.to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.3.to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.4.to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

In a free market, they would not be allowed to do those things and the quality of the water and the air would be much better. Its only because the government has taken over the management of the environment that they get away with it.

You say that they "would not be allowed to do those things". Who would forbid them from doing so and how? In particular, if you think that the market would stop them, can you point to the process by which it would do so and justify why all the people involved in the market would act in that way?

reg·u·late [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPAverb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.1.to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.2.to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.3.to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.4.to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

No mention of governments here.

I said there is no point in discussing semantics. Everybody understand the context.

The point is that contrary to what Lupus was saying the number of regulations in the USA have increased, not decreased.

I said there is no point in discussing semantics. Everybody understand the context.

And I disagreed.

It's just not clear to me why some rules the government enforces should get the special privilege of avoiding being called regulations, and others don't. How do you make this distinction? And how is it not arbitrary?

So to avoid this problem, I think libertarians should simply use the word in the more general sense. Plus it'll help with your PR effort, since most people support and understand the need for market regulation.